Fw: Re: [Advisory] After #Naace2010

[Leon Cych]

--0-172476899-1269110669=:94954
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Brian,

I would agree with some of these points but not others.

Certainly Ofsted's lack of direction came into high relief in relation to t=
he Twitter Wall. But somehow I felt it unfair to have a Twitter Wall runnin=
g when someone was unaware of the comments going on in the room.=20

With Ofsted the problem has always been bean counting - they need to shift =
up a gear if they are not going to be marginalised in the future. Yes they =
still have power to determine the parameters by which to judge a school but=
 I think they are beginning to woefully lose their way judged by the other =
key note contributors to the conference have outlined the way things are go=
ing.

What happens currently is that head teachers are given pages and pages of q=
uestions they have to answer which are then summatively judged against thos=
e frameworks.

What isn't there?

1) Any formative system of assessment that could offere positive management=
 solutions - having an inspection force who are merely observers is not goo=
d enough - they need to be made to engage as part of a professional assessm=
ent system - not just be number crunchers.

2) No aggregation of meaningful data that would prove useful to schools is =
held in any way that could be useful on the Ofsted site. If you are going t=
o bean count then why not make it more transparent. Have a useful search fu=
nction that aggregated subjects, schools, data, outcomes, school meals (:))=
 so it can be compared like for like - where's the data back engine to do t=
his - well overdue I would think or is it merely just to be hidden and prop=
rietorial so that dictats can be issued once in a while for the media. Ther=
e is no commutativity of data and sharing of data - no desire to engage oth=
er than measure by fixed parameters which, as we see, are a retreat into th=
e dark ages.

Try and search the PDF database and find patterns of inspection - why is th=
is not made more transparent?

So now we are expected to take the communication out of ICT because "We do =
that well" and concentrate on a curriculum inspection that is in retrograde=
 at the moment as far as I'm concerned.

So we go back to a set of parameters that appear to be a comfort zone and s=
chools will be judged against them. An immutable tail wagging a particularl=
y dozy dog. When the dog wakes up as it is doing in the teaching force or t=
he people observing activity around the teaching force, then things begin t=
o happen. People start to question the traditional models of planning, asse=
ssment and examination.

I guess it is to be expected Ofsted and QCDA appear to not seem to be aware=
 of the possibilities of more recent social media or the disjunction betwee=
n what is now happening in the home and the school. This gulf will only gro=
w wider - the school population and parents become increasingly disaffected=
 as technology will become more ubiquitous and broadband more available.

If you want more girls to do ICT then change the exam - make it more releva=
nt and interesting - personalise it - make sure people engage not just have=
 to do these increasingly disaffecting exams - for that surely is what they=
 are if 50 per cent of the pupils are using walking away. It just isn't wor=
king - saying people aren't engaging should tell you something...

Sometimes unintended consequences cause the education and insight you are l=
ooking for. With programming it was the coming of the early personal comput=
ers and the games written by amateurs at home off the back of that. Some ma=
rvellous programmers emerged from that - al lot of them bypassed exams and =
started their own companies...

That whole industry still isn't acknowledged by government in terms of tax =
benefits even though they make more than the film industry in this country.=
 Most of those companies have gone to Canada ... yet another opportunity lo=
st.

If you want people to do stuff that aids the economy and uses imagination t=
o do it, then devise something more than just husks of proprietorial fence =
jumping for individuals. Bring in collaborative exams where people can expl=
ore and work to their talents - make peer assessment and personal responsib=
ility ways in which you can assess. Anyone tried thinking of that one yet? =
How about a vibrant, imaginative, "fun" curriculum completley contextualise=
d and relevant to the ways we live our lives now. Guess not - oh dear - yet=
 another fail...and for the country as a whole as well...never mind the ban=
ks are beginning to be back in profit not that any of them will pay back in=
 terms of social capital what they ruined as a knock on in terms of culture=
 and education although they are more than morally bound to do so...in the =
meantime we'll be expected to pull in our belts and intellectually too I wo=
uld hazard a guess...

The one big topic I took away from the conference is that we need to think =
very carefully about assessment and exams - in some cases they are getting =
in the way of actually adding to the country's economic well being because =
we lack vision in the way we can educate for the 21st century.

The system we have at secondary level is enabling people to teach more and =
more efficiently about less and less relevant things when it comes to what =
people need in jobs and creative endeavor in some cases. It's not fit for p=
urpose - people are retreating into 'curricular comfort zones' that are cul=
 de sacs when it comes to moving this country on.

Sometimes I feel if someone doesn't do something soon we are going to be mi=
red in confusion and failure to respond to the 21st Century and all its cha=
llenges.

And I'll ask it again as I have done over the years:

Where is the vision and where is the courage to follow that vision when it =
comes to Education?

The next few months will see cutbacks and all sorts of justifications for a=
 retreat into more cost-effective models of "delivery" - Education isn't ri=
ng-fenced and that is a tragedy because it will enable all sorts of justifi=
cations for paucity of vision - if people don't stand up and say these thin=
gs - well we have ourselves to blame in the long run...

Leon Cych


--- On Sat, 20/3/10, Brian Smith <brian@briansmithonline.com> wrote:

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmithonline.com>
Subject: [Advisory] After #Naace2010
To: advisory@talk.naace.org
Date: Saturday, 20 March, 2010, 16:35

Following this year's conference, I'm struggling to find=0A solutions.
Clearly Ofsted is still counting that which can be counted and nit-picking =
over whether data-logging is being 'delivered' or not. In the meantime the =
world's children are disengaging from education en masse. (If they need dat=
alogging they can pick it up in an hour - and probably most do when they bu=
y some technical Lego or a similar toy).
The pressure to break the mould and throw out the Victorian curriculum with=
 its deliver-and-test regime is building towards bursting point. Too many b=
right people are saying it: Ken Robinson, Don Tapscott, David Puttnam; thei=
r numbers are growing and their voices getting louder almost daily.=A0
And finally, Lord Puttnam's film showed that increasing global problems mea=
n that if we don't create a 21st century curriculum - and quickly - there m=
ay be no need for five A*- Cs because there'll be no world to live in.See w=
hat he=0A showed at:=A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVRi8_fXz1D8
So what's the solution?Needless to say I haven't a clue.But I do find that =
Web 2.0 technologies open the ability to problem-solve and debate.Twitterfa=
ll at conference added a dimension and a global audience to our sessions.Yo=
u do realise, don't you, that Chris Smith was participating in Thailand and=
 many comments were being retweeted to a global network of people by an edu=
cator in Ecuador. That's just two examples.
TeachMeet was real chalk-face practitioners turning their back on Governmen=
t and Ofsted and getting together to share innovative ideas - and their ses=
sions were streamed on Ustream to a global audience.
This global dimension is almost totally lacking in the average=0A classroom=
. In its place we have locked-down systems which wouldn't allow my photos f=
rom BETT to be viewed by Pete Rafferty (@raff31) an innovative Year 4 teach=
er on Merseyside. No, he didn't have 8-year-olds accessing Twitter - this w=
as his own account on his own laptop which he was using to receive news fro=
m professional educators attending the BETT Show. Nothing reached his child=
ren without being filtered by him - yet even he, as a teacher, wasn't given=
 this freedom because Twitpic is blocked.
How can children become the "people we need" when even their teachers can't=
 show them the benefits technology can bring?
Unlock the WebMy instinct is to unlock the web and let teachers use Web 2.0=
 with their classes but that ignores Internet safety issues.
The more I think about it the more I know that it depends on age. But=A0the=
 starting point should be open access=0A and then lock down only as much as=
 necessary.

Consider nursery and reception children for example.=A0Open access would be=
 so wrong for them.=A0Yet a primary teacher who can't put Twitterfall on th=
e whiteboard is surely damaging the children's prospects.
So how about this.=A0Consider the roads analogy.=A0
We wouldn't let five year olds roam freely on the roads so we keep them shu=
t indoors or safe in the garden with the gate shut.=A0
But we also go out onto the roads with them so they learn road safety.=A0
We do it by constantly explaining and demonstrating.=A0Not incessantly, jus=
t every time a road needs to be crossed.=A0In between we are talking about =
everything else.

A suggestion:On the net, then, I think we should direct young children to s=
afe sites for specific activities and have filters in place so they can't g=
o ANYWHERE=0A else.

But not a county filter or even a school filter. It needs to be a class fil=
ter because the seven year olds will need a bit more flexibility and the 11=
 years old a lot more.

AND, the class filter should be only on the children's access points. The t=
eacher should have unfettered access so if she wants to use Twitter or any =
other social networking site - or MSN - or Skype - or Ustream - she can. Be=
cause she won't let the children on that computer and she'll only ever acce=
ss these sites as part of a lesson. So she might have Twitterfall on the bi=
g screen for a particular purpose during a particular lesson, perhaps with =
a TA monitoring content in the seconds between receipt and display.

Thus the children are safe but they also learn to communicate and collabora=
te as the teacher holds their hand.
Just like on the road.

As they grow older the filters come off but only with adequate internet saf=
ety training.

And on=0A that subject, see these two articles::

A school that's praised for less filtered access with good safety training:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Use-online-tool-nets-school-E-Safety-m=
ark/article-1812042-detail/article.html

Managed rather than locked down:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8505914.stm

So those are my fairly random thoughts so far, two days after conference.
What do you think?
Brian Smith

---------------------------------------Disclaimers about how this is intend=
ed for you and if you aren't you, let me know.Oh=0A and by the way, the con=
tent *is* my opinion.
--0-172476899-1269110669=:94954
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"=
top" style=3D"font: inherit;"><br>Brian,<br><br>I would agree with some of =
these points but not others.<br><br>Certainly Ofsted's lack of direction ca=
me into high relief in relation to the Twitter Wall. But somehow I felt it =
unfair to have a Twitter Wall running when someone was unaware of the comme=
nts going on in the room. <br><br>With Ofsted the problem has always been b=
ean counting - they need to shift up a gear if they are not going to be mar=
ginalised in the future. Yes they still have power to determine the paramet=
ers by which to judge a school but I think they are beginning to woefully l=
ose their way judged by the other key note contributors to the conference h=
ave outlined the way things are going.<br><br>What happens currently is tha=
t head teachers are given pages and pages of questions they have to answer =
which are then summatively judged against those frameworks.<br><br>What isn=
't
 there?<br><br>1) Any formative system of assessment that could offere posi=
tive management solutions - having an inspection force who are merely obser=
vers is not good enough - they need to be made to engage as part of a profe=
ssional assessment system - not just be number crunchers.<br><br>2) No aggr=
egation of meaningful data that would prove useful to schools is held in an=
y way that could be useful on the Ofsted site. If you are going to bean cou=
nt then why not make it more transparent. Have a useful search function tha=
t aggregated subjects, schools, data, outcomes, school meals (:)) so it can=
 be compared like for like - where's the data back engine to do this - well=
 overdue I would think or is it merely just to be hidden and proprietorial =
so that dictats can be issued once in a while for the media. There is no co=
mmutativity of data and sharing of data - no desire to engage other than me=
asure by fixed parameters which, as we see, are a retreat into the
 dark ages.<br><br>Try and search the PDF database and find patterns of ins=
pection - why is this not made more transparent?<br><br>So now we are expec=
ted to take the communication out of ICT because "We do that well" and conc=
entrate on a curriculum inspection that is in retrograde at the moment as f=
ar as I'm concerned.<br><br>So we go back to a set of parameters that appea=
r to be a comfort zone and schools will be judged against them. An immutabl=
e tail wagging a particularly dozy dog. When the dog wakes up as it is doin=
g in the teaching force or the people observing activity around the teachin=
g force, then things begin to happen. People start to question the traditio=
nal models of planning, assessment and examination.<br><br>I guess it is to=
 be expected Ofsted and QCDA appear to not seem to be aware of the possibil=
ities of more recent social media or the disjunction between what is now ha=
ppening in the home and the school. This gulf will only grow wider -
 the school population and parents become increasingly disaffected as techn=
ology will become more ubiquitous and broadband more available.<br><br>If y=
ou want more girls to do ICT then change the exam - make it more relevant a=
nd interesting - personalise it - make sure people engage not just have to =
do these increasingly disaffecting exams - for that surely is what they are=
 if 50 per cent of the pupils are using walking away. It just isn't working=
 - saying people aren't engaging should tell you something...<br><br>Someti=
mes unintended consequences cause the education and insight you are looking=
 for. With programming it was the coming of the early personal computers an=
d the games written by amateurs at home off the back of that. Some marvello=
us programmers emerged from that - al lot of them bypassed exams and starte=
d their own companies...<br><br>That whole industry still isn't acknowledge=
d by government in terms of tax benefits even though they make more
 than the film industry in this country. Most of those companies have gone =
to Canada ... yet another opportunity lost.<br><br>If you want people to do=
 stuff that aids the economy and uses imagination to do it, then devise som=
ething more than just husks of proprietorial fence jumping for individuals.=
 Bring in collaborative exams where people can explore and work to their ta=
lents - make peer assessment and personal responsibility ways in which you =
can assess. Anyone tried thinking of that one yet? How about a vibrant, ima=
ginative, "fun" curriculum completley contextualised and relevant to the wa=
ys we live our lives now. Guess not - oh dear - yet another fail...and for =
the country as a whole as well...never mind the banks are beginning to be b=
ack in profit not that any of them will pay back in terms of social capital=
 what they ruined as a knock on in terms of culture and education although =
they are more than morally bound to do so...in the meantime we'll be
 expected to pull in our belts and intellectually too I would hazard a gues=
s...<br><br>The one big topic I took away from the conference is that we ne=
ed to think very carefully about assessment and exams - in some cases they =
are getting in the way of actually adding to the country's economic well be=
ing because we lack vision in the way we can educate for the 21st century.<=
br><br>The system we have at secondary level is enabling people to teach mo=
re and more efficiently about less and less relevant things when it comes t=
o what people need in jobs and creative endeavor in some cases. It's not fi=
t for purpose - people are retreating into 'curricular comfort zones' that =
are cul de sacs when it comes to moving this country on.<br><br>Sometimes I=
 feel if someone doesn't do something soon we are going to be mired in conf=
usion and failure to respond to the 21st Century and all its challenges.<br=
><br>And I'll ask it again as I have done over the
 years:<br><br>Where is the vision and where is the courage to follow that =
vision when it comes to Education?<br><br>The next few months will see cutb=
acks and all sorts of justifications for a retreat into more cost-effective=
 models of "delivery" - Education isn't ring-fenced and that is a tragedy b=
ecause it will enable all sorts of justifications for paucity of vision - i=
f people don't stand up and say these things - well we have ourselves to bl=
ame in the long run...<br><br>Leon Cych<br><blockquote style=3D"border-left=
: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br><di=
v id=3D"yiv2010869370"><table border=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" cellspacing=3D=
"0"><tbody><tr><td style=3D"font: inherit;" valign=3D"top"><br>--- On <b>Sa=
t, 20/3/10, Brian Smith <i>&lt;brian@briansmithonline.com&gt;</i></b> wrote=
:<br><blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-l=
eft: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Brian Smith
 &lt;brian@briansmithonline.com&gt;<br>Subject: [Advisory] After #Naace2010=
<br>To: advisory@talk.naace.org<br>Date: Saturday, 20 March, 2010, 16:35<br=
><br><div id=3D"yiv693581447">Following this year's conference, I'm struggl=
ing to find=0A solutions.<div><br></div><div>Clearly Ofsted is still counti=
ng that which can be counted and nit-picking over whether data-logging is b=
eing 'delivered' or not. In the meantime the world's children are disengagi=
ng from education en masse. (If they need datalogging they can pick it up i=
n an hour - and probably most do when they buy some technical Lego or a sim=
ilar toy).</div><div><br></div><div>The pressure to break the mould and thr=
ow out the Victorian curriculum with its deliver-and-test regime is buildin=
g towards bursting point. Too many bright people are saying it: Ken Robinso=
n, Don Tapscott, David Puttnam; their numbers are growing and their voices =
getting louder almost daily.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>And finally, Lo=
rd Puttnam's film showed that increasing global problems mean that if we do=
n't create a 21st century curriculum - and quickly - there may be no need f=
or five A*- Cs because there'll be no world to live in.</div><div>See what =
he=0A showed at:&nbsp;<a rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"http://=
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVRi8_fXz1D8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVRi=
8_fXz1D8</a></div><div><br></div><div><b>So what's the solution?</b></div><=
div>Needless to say I haven't a clue.</div><div>But I do find that Web 2.0 =
technologies open the ability to problem-solve and debate.</div><div>Twitte=
rfall at conference added a dimension and a global audience to our sessions=
.</div><div>You do realise, don't you, that Chris Smith was participating i=
n Thailand and many comments were being retweeted to a global network of pe=
ople by an educator in Ecuador. That's just two examples.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>TeachMeet was real chalk-face practitioners turning their back on G=
overnment and Ofsted and getting together to share innovative ideas - and t=
heir sessions were streamed on Ustream to a global audience.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>This global dimension is almost totally lacking in the average=
=0A classroom. In its place we have locked-down systems which wouldn't allo=
w my photos from BETT to be viewed by Pete Rafferty (@raff31) an innovative=
 Year 4 teacher on Merseyside. No, he didn't have 8-year-olds accessing Twi=
tter - this was his own account on his own laptop which he was using to rec=
eive news from professional educators attending the BETT Show. Nothing reac=
hed his children without being filtered by him - yet even he, as a teacher,=
 wasn't given this freedom because Twitpic is blocked.</div><div><br></div>=
<div>How can children become the "people we need" when even their teachers =
can't show them the benefits technology can bring?</div><div><br></div><div=
><b>Unlock the Web</b></div><div>My instinct is to unlock the web and let t=
eachers use Web 2.0 with their classes but that ignores Internet safety iss=
ues.</div><div><br></div><div>The more I think about it the more I know tha=
t it depends on age. But&nbsp;the starting point should be open access=0A a=
nd then lock down only as much as necessary.<br><br>Consider nursery and re=
ception children for example.&nbsp;Open access would be so wrong for them.&=
nbsp;Yet a primary teacher who can't put Twitterfall on the whiteboard is s=
urely damaging the children's prospects.</div><div><br></div><div>So how ab=
out this.&nbsp;</div><div>Consider the roads analogy.&nbsp;<br>We wouldn't =
let five year olds roam freely on the roads so we keep them shut indoors or=
 safe in the garden with the gate shut.&nbsp;<br>But we also go out onto th=
e roads with them so they learn road safety.&nbsp;<br>We do it by constantl=
y explaining and demonstrating.&nbsp;</div><div>Not incessantly, just every=
 time a road needs to be crossed.&nbsp;</div><div>In between we are talking=
 about everything else.<br><br><b>A suggestion:</b></div><div>On the net, t=
hen, I think we should direct young children to safe sites for specific act=
ivities and have filters in place so they can't go ANYWHERE=0A else.<br><br=
>But not a county filter or even a school filter. It needs to be a class fi=
lter because the seven year olds will need a bit more flexibility and the 1=
1 years old a lot more.<br><br>AND, the class filter should be only on the =
children's access points. The teacher should have unfettered access so if s=
he wants to use Twitter or any other social networking site - or MSN - or S=
kype - or Ustream - she can. Because she won't let the children on that com=
puter and she'll only ever access these sites as part of a lesson. So she m=
ight have Twitterfall on the big screen for a particular purpose during a p=
articular lesson, perhaps with a TA monitoring content in the seconds betwe=
en receipt and display.<br><br>Thus the children are safe but they also lea=
rn to communicate and collaborate as the teacher holds their hand.<br>Just =
like on the road.<br><br>As they grow older the filters come off but only w=
ith adequate internet safety training.<br><br>And on=0A that subject, see t=
hese two articles::<br><br>A school that's praised for less filtered access=
 with good safety training:<br><a rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" href=
=3D"http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Use-online-tool-nets-school-E-Safe=
ty-mark/article-1812042-detail/article.html">http://www.thisisplymouth.co.u=
k/news/Use-online-tool-nets-school-E-Safety-mark/article-1812042-detail/art=
icle.html</a><br><br>Managed rather than locked down:<br><a rel=3D"nofollow=
" target=3D"_blank" href=3D"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8505914.st=
m">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8505914.stm</a></div><div><br></div=
><div><br></div><div>So those are my fairly random thoughts so far, two day=
s after conference.</div><div><br></div><div>What do you think?</div><div><=
br></div><div>Brian Smith</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>---------=
------------------------------</div><div>Disclaimers about how this is inte=
nded for you and if you aren't you, let me know.</div><div>Oh=0A and by the=
 way, the content *is* my opinion.</div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbod=
y></table></div></blockquote></td></tr></table>
--0-172476899-1269110669=:94954--